PDA

View Full Version : Woman Kills Shower Attacker


BarryLee
May 11, 2011, 02:17 PM
A woman in suburban Atlanta was attacked in her home as she took a shower she ended up shooting and killing her assailant. I thought there were a few important lessons here and maybe others I missed.

First, the woman fought back using whatever she could for a weapon in this case the shower curtain rod. She did not give up during what I am sure was a very scary situation.

Secondly, she had made the decision to arm herself and regardless of how bad the situation was she did not forget that gun. When she was able she got to the gun and utilized it ending the attack.

Thirdly, she utilized a .22 revolver. I have no way of knowing why she selected that caliber, but she obviously felt comfortable with it and it was effective.

http://www.ajc.com/news/gwinnett/woman-kills-attacker-in-942224.html

aarondhgraham
May 11, 2011, 02:37 PM
It's a shame she had to do it,,,
But I am glad she was prepared,,,
And that she had the guts to defend herself.

Hopefully she will be able to get past any guilt,,,
She did the proper thing under the circumstance she faced.

I will beam her as much good Karma as I am able to.

Like her neighbor said,,,
"Good for her."

Aarond

lawnboy
May 11, 2011, 03:30 PM
It's a shame she had to do it,,,
But I am glad she was prepared,,,
And that she had the guts to defend herself.

Hopefully she will be able to get past any guilt,,,
She did the proper thing under the circumstance she faced

Why would she feel any guilt? She oughta feel the exhilaration of righteous victory.

markj
May 11, 2011, 03:35 PM
I bet she feels glad she wasnt hurt too bad.

A .22? :) works in many situations. Good for her on having it and using it, arm your women, never know when they may need it. This was at 6:30 am

mrbro
May 11, 2011, 03:46 PM
I'll help aaron with the karma.

Wag
May 11, 2011, 03:50 PM
"Minor injuries" obviously doesn't include the mental trauma she will endure for some time to come. A lot of sleepless nights ahead for this woman.

A pox on all such criminals who do such things to people.

--Wag--

dburkhead
May 11, 2011, 03:55 PM
Why would she feel any guilt?

Maybe because most people find killing another human being, no matter how justified the killing is, to be a traumatic event.

Not saying she shouldn't have waxed the creep, but dismissing the entirely human reaction to having ended a human life does not help.

aarondhgraham
May 11, 2011, 03:57 PM
I couldn't have said it any better,,,

Aarond

9mm
May 11, 2011, 03:58 PM
link not working.

Vanya
May 11, 2011, 04:27 PM
This woman did well. I'd be curious to know what, if any, self-defense training she had, what with trying to fight off her assailant with a shower curtain rod, of all things... That shows some presence of mind, I think, even if it wasn't too effective.

And she kept fighting. I'm sorta proud of her. ;)

In this case, the .22 was enough to stop the attack, but the story does say that the attacker left after being shot, was picked up by police, and died in the hospital... that's an acceptable outcome (I won't call any outcome that involves a death a "good" one), but I think I'm going to stick with something a bit larger for home defense.

It does seem to me that in this particular situation -- an attacker forcing someone into her bedroom, presumably at very close quarters -- an accessible pistol of some kind would be more useful than a shotgun or carbine -- something to ponder, tactically speaking...

lawnboy
May 11, 2011, 04:36 PM
Quote:
Why would she feel any guilt?

Maybe because most people find killing another human being, no matter how justified the killing is, to be a traumatic event.

Not saying she shouldn't have waxed the creep, but dismissing the entirely human reaction to having ended a human life does not help.

First of all, none of us know what her reaction is/was/will be. She may feel traumatized or she may feel euphoric (I'm pulling for option B). Noted defensive handgun authority Jeff Cooper devoted a chapter to this in To Ride, Shoot Straight and Speak The Truth. He believed that the proper response was satisfaction in a job well done. I've always thought this was a proper attitude.

Many people believe that killing another human being in a justified situation is a cause for celebration. I'll buy the first round.

Don Glock
May 11, 2011, 04:47 PM
guess he won't be attacking any more women :cool:

Glenn E. Meyer
May 11, 2011, 04:51 PM
Sigh, Jeff Cooper is not an expert on human psychological behavior.

After killing another person, many people have some negative emotional consequences. Check our other many threads on the issue.

That's the truth - so posturing that it doesn't happen or shouldn't happen or won't happen to you because you are so whatever - is useless commentary.

Given that much expertise as gone way past Cooper's on this - please don't start another BS posturing set of posts.

dburkhead
May 11, 2011, 04:55 PM
First of all, none of us know what her reaction is/was/will be. She may feel traumatized or she may feel euphoric (I'm pulling for option B). Noted defensive handgun authority Jeff Cooper devoted a chapter to this in To Ride, Shoot Straight and Speak The Truth. He believed that the proper response was satisfaction in a job well done. I've always thought this was a proper attitude.

Many people believe that killing another human being in a justified situation is a cause for celebration. I'll buy the first round.

I have to wonder how many people you've killed? How many people do you know personally who've killed others?

One may think something is the "proper attitude" but that has very little to do with the way people actually respond. People's emotions and what they think "ought" to be often have little to do with each other.

From everything I've seen including accounts written by folk who have killed others in self defense, first hand accounts I've managed to tease out of others, and actual studies on the subject, guilt/remorse/stress is the most common reaction to killing. Maybe it shouldn't be in some abstract sense, but that "shouldn't be" doesn't matter much when it comes to how people and their emotions actually react.

Whether the victim in this case has that particular most common reaction or is one of the minority who don't react that way is an open question. However, you asked why she should feel guilty and received an answer as to why she very well might.

Jim March
May 11, 2011, 05:09 PM
She probably channeled her Celtic nekkid warrior ancestors :). Well...if she had any Celt in her that is. Sure as hell she had the whole "nekkid warrior" thing down pat.

:)

lawnboy
May 11, 2011, 05:26 PM
Sigh, Jeff Cooper is not an expert on human psychological behavior.
[\Quote]

He was an expert on shooting people.


[QUOTE]After killing another person, many people have some negative emotional consequences. Check our other many threads on the issue.


Agreed and acknowledged. But many do not. Including some posters on the many TFL threads on the issue.

That's the truth - so posturing that it doesn't happen or shouldn't happen or won't happen to you because you are so whatever - is useless commentary.

I know that I did no such thing. I pointed out that a knee jerk emotional response is not the only way of reacting to this incident. That is not useless. Read the posts again.

Given that much expertise as gone way past Cooper's on this - please don't start another BS posturing set of posts.

See previous comments.

One may think something is the "proper attitude" but that has very little to do with the way people actually respond. People's emotions and what they think "ought" to be often have little to do with each other.


Absolutely, but this doesn't stop one from aspiring to an ideal.

From everything I've seen including accounts written by folk who have killed others in self defense, first hand accounts I've managed to tease out of others, and actual studies on the subject, guilt/remorse/stress is the most common reaction to killing. Maybe it shouldn't be in some abstract sense, but that "shouldn't be" doesn't matter much when it comes to how people and their emotions actually react.


I too think it is the most common response. But not the only one. And I'd argue that in someone who is either trained to use deadly force as a duty (LEO, Soldier) or in someone who has made the decision to provide themselves with the tools for deadly force thinking about the scenario of taking a life is as much a part of training as any other part of shooting. Reflection on past events leads me to believe that a great deal of the training I underwent in the USMC was aimed at this goal. I never had to use the training so we don't know yet how successful they were in my case. I like to think it took.

Whether the victim in this case has that particular most common reaction or is one of the minority who don't react that way is an open question. However, you asked why she should feel guilty and received an answer as to why she very well might.

For sure. But she might not. I still consider the desireable response in this particular situation is no remorse. Hell, I might, you might. You are entirely right to state that an emotional response is possible. My question was intended to spark exactly this debate. Seems to have worked. Again.

And for the record I've never fired a gun at anyone. I do know people who have and their response is varied, with the emotional reaction most common.

GregInAtl
May 11, 2011, 05:32 PM
My wife and I were having a discussion last evening about the need to carry. She expressed concerns about carrying a gun, and her willingness to use it.

I showed her the article that is the subject of this thread. That remedied her of any concerns she had.

glockcompact
May 11, 2011, 05:36 PM
So glad she got away with only minor injuries. So glad she had a gun and was able to get to it. Now for that home alarm. Not an end all but a good deterant nonetheless.

I can't help but wonder how many other women in that neighborhood are thinking to themselves "Self, maybe getting a gun and some training would be a good idea after all!"

Vanya
May 11, 2011, 05:50 PM
He believed that the proper response was satisfaction in a job well done. I've always thought this was a proper attitude.
Whether or not one believes it's the "proper" attitude, as Dr. Meyer points out, it's not in fact the general one.

...thinking about the scenario of taking a life is as much a part of training as any other part of shooting. Reflection on past events leads me to believe that a great deal of the training I underwent in the USMC was aimed at this goal. I never had to use the training so we don't know yet how successful they were in my case.

You're correct that this is a major focus of military training, and it doesn't always "take." A bit of reading on the history of military training is a good way to convince oneself of this -- overcoming the reluctance to take a human life has, historically, been the most difficult problem to solve.

Whether it's hardwired or learned, that reluctance is deeply ingrained in most people. And most people do feel remorse, guilt, shame -- take your pick -- when they violate major taboos.

Many people believe that killing another human being in a justified situation is a cause for celebration. I'll buy the first round.

I won't be drinking with you. If I'm ever in that situation, and I hope I never will be, I expect I'll be happy to be alive, but I will never "celebrate" the killing of a fellow human.

psyfly
May 11, 2011, 06:00 PM
I believe the main point of the current argument about how someone might ‘feel’ after taking another life is that we, as responsible people who choose to consider a violent solution to a pending threat, need to be aware that we may face some unintended emotional consequences.

Who will feel those consequences, what those consequences are, and how severe those consequences may feel are all variables that are dependent upon the unique individual involved.

Any attempt to quantify the above variables and to decide what "most people" would do remains, at best, a wild-a$$ed guess.

Anyone who purports to be able to adequately predict how any individual will react is, IMO, badly mistaken.

This is what is sometimes miscalled an “empirical question” (meaning that the answer to the question might be found through careful application of proven scientific procedures).

Ain’t going to happen.

So, it remains for us to expect the best outcome and to prepare to deal with the worst.

Best,

Will

dburkhead
May 11, 2011, 06:00 PM
He was an expert on shooting people.

Which, at best, makes him an expert on his own reaction to shooting people. It does not, by itself, qualify him to speak on how other people react.

Leatherman-Cowboy
May 11, 2011, 06:04 PM
Happy to hear the woman was able to properly defend her self,from what could have enede up costing her own life.I dont feel sorry for the thug.
Thank you,
Henry

Don Glock
May 11, 2011, 06:11 PM
lmao you guys are still debating psychology :D

lawnboy
May 11, 2011, 06:25 PM
Quote:
He was an expert on shooting people.[\Quote]

[Quote]Which, at best, makes him an expert on his own reaction to shooting people. It does not, by itself, qualify him to speak on how other people react.


What it does do is show that more than one type of reaction is possible. If we believe the man who tells us he suffers emotional trauma from his actions on the street or battlefield are we not obligated to believe the man who tells us he feels only exhilaration or euphoria?

The fact that another reaction is evidently possible makes an emotional response to a righteous shooting a potential training issue rather than an innate human response.

Who exactly would be qualified to comment on such matters if Mr. Cooper is not?

lawnboy
May 11, 2011, 06:26 PM
lmao you guys are still debating psychology

What else is psychology good for, if not debate.:) Except at the poker table of course.

Vanya wrote:
Quote:
Many people believe that killing another human being in a justified situation is a cause for celebration. I'll buy the first round.

I won't be drinking with you. If I'm ever in that situation, and I hope I never will be, I expect I'll be happy to be alive, but I will never "celebrate" the killing of a fellow human.

That's an excellent point. My drink comment was flippant and unsuited to the gravity of the topic. I cheerfully withdraw the comment, although not the underlying sentiment that defeating any enemy can be cause for celebration, but perhaps not toasting. I did unapologetically celebrate the recent killing of OBL.

chadstrickland
May 11, 2011, 06:27 PM
Hope this thread stays on topic as im sure there is some more to this story we havnt heard yet..as if the women attended a training school on self defence or home defence..and hopefully we will here all about it if she did..but I am glad that the woman lived and wasn't raped and murdered ...( I personally think that is 3/4 the silver lining )...the other 1/4 is that the attacker died...someone here said that no good comes from someone being killed...I humbly disagree...im glad he died and know that it was a 22 it gave him plenty of time weez and gurgle before he died...( my brother was hit by a 22 bullet in the heart and I watched him pass out and nearly die as I did cpr on him )...that is a thing I will wish only on a true scum bag......sorry for the rant but people like that just make me sick

dburkhead
May 11, 2011, 06:47 PM
What it does do is show that more than one type of reaction is possible. If we believe the man who tells us he suffers emotional trauma from his actions on the street or battlefield are we not obligated to believe the man who tells us he feels only exhilaration or euphoria?

You asked why she should feel guilt. You were given a reason why a normal person might. Your question was answered. Nobody said it was the only possible reaction. That's your straw man.

The fact that another reaction is evidently possible makes an emotional response to a righteous shooting a potential training issue rather than an innate human response.

You're overassuming again. Some people react differently than others because, now get this, different people are different. Some people get freckles when exposed to UV light. Some don't. Has nothing to do with "training." Has everything to do with how different people respond to the same stimuli. (Physical in one case, emotional in the other.)

Who exactly would be qualified to comment on such matters if Mr. Cooper is not?

How about somebody who actually studies human stress reactions and the reactions of people to events like having to shoot someone in defense of self and others.

Experts are not necessarily knowledgeable outside their own fields. Jeff Cooper was quite knowledgeable in his field, but that field was not psychology and the study of things like PTSD.

Here's an example. Paul Ragonese, long term police officer on the NYPD. Years of experience and training,multiple awards for lifesaving and heroism, yet when he had to kill someone in self defense his response was far from "hoist a cold one." And in his retelling he relates coming to understand other officers who had killed in the line of duty whose reactions mostly seemed to mirror his. It was the most common, the normal, reaction. (Sorry, no links. I have his book "Soul of a Cop" in my library.)

lawnboy
May 11, 2011, 07:19 PM
It's a shame she had to do it,,,
But I am glad she was prepared,,,
And that she had the guts to defend herself.

Hopefully she will be able to get past any guilt,,,
She did the proper thing under the circumstance she faced.


This is the comment that prompted me to weigh in. It assumes that she may feel guilt. I asked why she should feel guilt and stated that she should be exhilarated that she won. Admittedly my own wish.

Dburkhead wrote:
You asked why she should feel guilt. You were given a reason why a normal person might. Your question was answered. Nobody said it was the only possible reaction. That's your straw man.


I have emphasized part of your comment in bold. This is exactly what I have a problem with. In a previous thread on TFL linked here: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=449350&highlight=sociopath
similar comments were made that no normal person could feel anything other than remorse after taking a life no matter how justified. Actual people who have taken lives responded that this was just not so. There was opinion both ways. But to say that it is "normal" for a person to feel so is to either call those who say otherwise liars or to accuse them of a deficiency. It is possible to feel either way. Training can have an impact in overcoming the societal taboo.

How about somebody who actually studies human stress reactions and the reactions of people to events like having to shoot someone in defense of self and others.

Experts are not necessarily knowledgeable outside their own fields. Jeff Cooper was quite knowledgeable in his field, but that field was not psychology and the study of things like PTSD.

Here's an example. Paul Ragonese, long term police officer on the NYPD. Years of experience and training,multiple awards for lifesaving and heroism, yet when he had to kill someone in self defense his response was far from "hoist a cold one." And in his retelling he relates coming to understand other officers who had killed in the line of duty whose reactions mostly seemed to mirror his. It was the most common, the normal, reaction. (Sorry, no links. I have his book "Soul of a Cop" in my library.)

I do not dispute your citation. I freely acknowledge that both reactions are possible. I don't see what you are disputing here. Mr Cooper and Mr Ragonese having differing opinions makes my point, not yours.

chadstrickland
May 11, 2011, 07:26 PM
I agree that it is different for each person..several of my close friends have killed people...only one will not talk about it..the other three discuss it as though it was the local news...go figure

Lawyer Daggit
May 11, 2011, 07:32 PM
We are conditioned from a young age not to kill. A reaction can therefore be regarded as a normal event- even when you have an excellent excuse.

Don Glock
May 11, 2011, 07:36 PM
I think Jeff cooper would have jumped out of the shower, butt naked, then chuck norris tornado kicked the attacker.

then, shot him with the colt peacemaker that he showers with.

finally, taken ambien, with abylify, to get a restful night's sleep, and awaken fresh in the morning.

lawnboy
May 11, 2011, 07:45 PM
We are conditioned from a young age not to kill. A reaction can therefore be regarded as a normal event- even when you have an excellent excuse.

We're also conditioned to avoid danger. And yet we have Cops, firefighters, Soldiers, Sailors and Marines. The societal conditioning is just another form of training, albeit a powerful one. I'm arguing that it can be overcome. And many people have done so.

MLeake
May 11, 2011, 07:45 PM
Without meaning to be a jerk about it, I thought I should point out that for all the people who today are saying they would never celebrate the taking of a human life, there were a whole lot of TFLers doing exactly that in the forum the other day, when the SEALS bagged Osama Bin Laden. I believe some of those people are saying they'd never celebrate such in this thread...

I hope the lady isn't too mentally scarred. She won this round, yes, but she was assaulted in her home. My lady and I never felt the same in a previous house, after it was merely burglarized. The experience soured our take on that neighborhood.

This was light-years worse. I can imagine that lady wanting to move, or at the very least have the home sterilized, an alarm system and new locks added, etc.

And there is the strong possibility that she will feel remorse. It's easy to say we wouldn't (and I know some people for whom that generally seems to be true), but even skells may have elderly parents, or small kids, who will be heart-broken over this kind of demise. It's hard to celebrate if one imagines the dead BG's child at home, crying.

bigbaby
May 11, 2011, 08:08 PM
She is a tough broad, no doubt about that. She did better then most of us would have done in that situation. The .22 did ok, but I gotta go with my 38.

Celebrating survival is normal, celebrating the death of an intractable foe like Bin laden is normal, but a total lack of remorse for killing someone, even like this, is not normal. I don't need any, so called experts, to tell me that.

Big Shrek
May 11, 2011, 08:37 PM
The most stress I've ever had in my life was from NOT killing a criminal that I should have.
Spent more time and anger being totally frustrated at myself and the situtations that
occured AFTER the scumbag was released on bail (he kidnapped & raped a 14-yr old girl) and I still feel crabby
when I think about it, even though he was killed in a prison fight years ago while serving the Kidnapping/Rape sentence.
(Justice finally got served)

When you DON'T extinguish a scumbag when you should, there's no telling what they'll do next to hurt someone else.

I will NEVER "hold until police arrive" a bad guy again...they're only going to find a corpse to stick in a body bag.
And I will definitely sleep well at night, knowing for certain that there will be one less scumbag
terrorizing the rest of the world.

MLeake
May 11, 2011, 08:47 PM
Big Shrek, should such a situation ever arise, you'd best hope the DA doesn't search your posts and find that last one.

Some thoughts are best kept in your head, and not put into permanently viewable form.

bigbaby
May 11, 2011, 08:59 PM
There is still time to 'edit' I know I would LOL

dburkhead
May 11, 2011, 09:13 PM
It's a shame she had to do it,,,
But I am glad she was prepared,,,
And that she had the guts to defend herself.

Hopefully she will be able to get past any guilt,,,
She did the proper thing under the circumstance she faced. This is the comment that prompted me to weigh in. It assumes that she may feel guilt. I asked why she should feel guilt and stated that she should be exhilarated that she won. Admittedly my own wish.

Yes. You asked why. Then you were told why. The original expression "Hopefully she will be able to get past any guilt" as worded, expressed the possibility of guilt ("any guilt" as opposed to "her guilt" or "the guilt" which would have implied more certainty that she _would_ feel guilt).

Also being exhilarated that she won and feeling guilty over taking a human life are not incompatible emotions. People are complex and it's quite possible for a person to feel both at the same time (and to compound the feelings of guilt precisely because they feel good about having won).

Humans are remarkably complex creatures and simplistic either-or answers are usually wrong.

Big Shrek
May 11, 2011, 09:15 PM
Florida DA's tend to be on the conservative side, but y'all were right, a little editing was in order ;)

Last time a NW Fla DA decided to get froggy with a criminal killed by a victim during the commission of a crime,
his whole office got cleaned out before the next election (which he also lost)...it was the 7th time that shopkeeper had shot a bad guy,
the DA thought it was excessive, and prosecuted...the jury came back after 15 minutes deliberation, Not Guilty.
Then the County Commission started cutting his staff back, transferring & outright firing everyone who had
anything to do with forwarding that case...as the public went Tar & Feather on 'em.

Now Florida has some of the most forgiving "Castle Laws" in the USA...helped in part by that case.
They have since expanded the meaning of the law to include your personal vehicle, your place of business, and public places.

The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. [This is an American right repeatedly recognized in Supreme Court gun cases.]

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims.

Honestly, EVERY state should adopt Florida's Castle Law...crime would drop like a rock!
Its definitely worked here!!

JohnKSa
May 11, 2011, 09:21 PM
I know that the mere thought of trying to maintain some sort of ability to respond to a threat while in the shower is the source of great mirth for many folks, even on this forum, but the fact remains that we are rarely so vulnerable while awake as we are while in the shower.

So much so that at least one serial killer made use of the fact. He would follow women home from the health club, wait until he heard the water come on and then break into the house, arm himself with a knife from the kitchen and then begin the attack.

I'm glad this woman was able to prevail over her attacker.

TenRing
May 11, 2011, 09:26 PM
That woman is a survivor and I wish all women would follow her example of preparedness and willingness to fight when necessary.

This is a good example to point out the next time an armchair ballistician pontificates that a .22 pistol is not good for self defense. Sure, a .38 or .44 would have been more powerful but not necessarily better if that power meant that the victim would not actually be comfortable using it.

No, the .22 didn't drop the perp in his tracks but it did make him turn the victim loose and run off to worry about his wounds. Thus, the .22 stopped the attack and that is really the objective. The fact that the perp later died is an unfortunate outcome for him but his attack was stopped.

I would be interested to know how the victim kept her handgun handy. Was it in a bathroom vanity drawer or hung from a lanyard around the shower head?

MLeake
May 11, 2011, 09:32 PM
It was in her bedroom; she fought back in the bathroom where the attack had started, but the BG overpowered her and dragged her to the bedroom.

dburkhead
May 11, 2011, 09:40 PM
I know that the mere thought of trying to maintain some sort of ability to respond to a threat while in the shower is the source of great mirth for many folks, even on this forum, but the fact remains that we are rarely so vulnerable while awake as we are while in the shower.

So much so that at least one serial killer made use of the fact. He would follow women home from the health club, wait until he heard the water come on and then break into the house, arm himself with a knife from the kitchen and then begin the attack.

I'm glad this woman was able to prevail over her attacker.

There's a reason that scene in Psycho is so scary to so many people.

lawnboy
May 11, 2011, 09:43 PM
Yes. You asked why. Then you were told why. The original expression "Hopefully she will be able to get past any guilt" as worded, expressed the possibility of guilt ("any guilt" as opposed to "her guilt" or "the guilt" which would have implied more certainty that she _would_ feel guilt).

Also being exhilarated that she won and feeling guilty over taking a human life are not incompatible emotions. People are complex and it's quite possible for a person to feel both at the same time (and to compound the feelings of guilt precisely because they feel good about having won).

Humans are remarkably complex creatures and simplistic either-or answers are usually wrong

Every fact you state in this post is an actual fact. Every conclusion you draw in this post is one I can recognize.

mbquimby
May 11, 2011, 09:47 PM
Why would she feel any guilt? She oughta feel the exhilaration of righteous victory.

I take it you've never killed anyone? It's one thing to feel justified. It's another to feel "exhilarated" especially after the adrenaline wears off and it gets really quiet.

I'm proud of her and I hope the knowledge that she did what had to be done outweighs the strain of facing the reality and finality of her actions.

After going back and reading the entire thread I felt the need to add this. Lawnboy, my goal wasn't to pile on criticism or in anyway call you out. You are free to think and react in anyway you want (within the realm of legality). I hope she feels proud of herself for being able to act courageously in a very intense situation. I don't think she would celebrate killing a person because she's likely lost the ability to be comfortable in her own house and maybe neighborhood because of his actions. Even without guilt, she has lost a lot and has a difficult road ahead of her. She will most likely suffer from sort of PTSD.

I also tried to think about it from the perspective of someone who had almost been raped/murdered. I'd probably get some sort of visceral pleasure from killing someone who tried rape my wife because of the hate I'd most likely harbor for him. How could I deny that she might have the same emotion?

I guess the short version is that nobody knows how she is dealing with this or even how we would in her shoes (unless you've been there). I do know we can agree on one thing and that is we are glad she made it, hope she is able to deal with it in a healthy way and can get back to the life her actions saved ASAP.

lawnboy
May 11, 2011, 10:39 PM
mrquimby,

No offense taken. No, never fired a shot in anger. I can see the exhilaration wearing off (or the "thrill of victory" if that is preferable).

I can also see that a whole lot of PTSD seems cultural. That is, it's a response based on societal conditioning. What is military training if not an attempt to overcome this? It may work or it may not.

It seems to me that claiming some kind of genetic imperative against taking another human life flies in the face of thousands of years of recorded history. People kill each other as naturally as they walk upright. The taboo is cultural. Not genetic. This means it can theoretically be overcome, with suitable training.

This does not make the feeling any less real. It just makes it but one of a range of possible responses. Granted the most common one, to a person raised in the Western Tradition. Which is what I'm most familiar with

My point is no more than that there is nothing wrong with being happy the other guy is dead. And staying happy about it.

JohnKSa
May 11, 2011, 10:54 PM
People kill each other as naturally as they walk upright.Based on the studies I've seen, this seems to be the exception rather than the rule. The reason bullying is problematic is that it is more common for people to avoid confrontation than to meet it head on. Bullies can get their way and enjoy their power trips because the common response isn't to confront them and call their bluff.

People feel very free to say that if faced with a bully, do thus and so and you will resolve the situation promptly, but when actually put into the situation most people won't take the direct approach, they will avoid confrontation.

Killing, in one very real sense, is the ultimate form of confrontation.

SOME people kill very naturally and easily, but that's not at all the norm. Some studies suggest that killing is a barrier that as much as 99% of the population will find extremely difficult to overcome except in the most dire circumstances. Grossman delves into this topic in his works and even if you disagree with his conclusions, his research is interesting.

Training helps, but it won't change the mental makeup of a person. Cirillo points out in his book that while well-trained individuals could often perform well in deadly force encounters, if they didn't have the proper mental makeup they would be subjected to extreme stress. By 'extreme' I mean 'life-threatening', I'm not talking about amnesia, bad dreams or the jitters. He became interested in the topic when some members of the NYPD stakeout squad began literally dropping from stress related illnesses while others seemed to be largely unaffected. He eventually put together a "profile" for what made a good gunfighter. Some of the traits were learned (traits that could be instilled by training/conditioning), but certainly not all of them were.

bigbaby
May 11, 2011, 10:57 PM
Americans are closer to the time when we had to be 'less civilized' simply because we faced so many immediate threats, due to the untamed nature of the continent just a few hundred years ago. That said I would dispute the characterization that the 'west' is more accepting of killing. Humans have a natural aversion to inflicting violence on their fellows. That is why tolerating the use of violence must be learned, at home, on the streets, in the service; where ever. The military uses a lot of basic mind influencing techniques to adjust their recruits. Their main goal is unit cohesion and overcoming our natural aversion to violence, assuming the recruit still has one by then. Training is a whole other matter and unit cohesion is a major goal as well but the mind games stuff is different from training in my experience. The fact that the military makes such a major effort as they do and still requires so many MH resources is because of our natural aversion to the use of violence. That said of course humans have instincts to kill and to attack even other humans, but they are generally under extraordinary circumstances.

lawnboy
May 11, 2011, 11:26 PM
Is that Dave Grossman? Sounds like a good read. Most of the research I've read has focused too much on recent history, in my opinion. Admittedly, it is hard to study the long past. But conceptually the fact that war is a human constant should lead to at least the thought that the ability to kill is built in.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue against the idea that CURRENTLY killing is a societal taboo that is reinforced strongly from an early age. This does not seem to stop the carnage though. I think it is at least conceivable that the taboo is a learned behavior and not inherent.

Large numbers of people take up arms against each other with the intent of killing each other every day. This is a fact. The question seems to me to be whether the training they undergo (if any) overcomes a cultural or genetic disposition or unlocks something inside them. The truth lies somewhere in there.

justjim75
May 11, 2011, 11:52 PM
many LEO's have bad probs after shooting someone and my grandfather wouldnt talk about anything he did in WWII except the fishing in the south pacific. i shower with my .45 on the vanity and all the doors deadbolted. you never know when you'll need your gun so i keep one with me everywhere.

JohnKSa
May 12, 2011, 12:03 AM
Is that Dave Grossman?Yup, I omitted an 's'. I don't buy all his conclusions but he's done a lot of good research and his books are worth the read, in my opinion.I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue against the idea that CURRENTLY killing is a societal taboo that is reinforced strongly from an early age. This does not seem to stop the carnage though. I think it is at least conceivable that the taboo is a learned behavior and not inherent.Grossman points out evidence to support the idea that it's not merely a current societal norm. As far as it being a taboo, I think it would be more accurate to call it a very common phobia instead. One that's so common as to be almost universal.

It's difficult to categorically state whether it's learned or intrinsic, but I think it's certainly accurate to say that regardless of how people develop this phobia it's something that's very difficult to unlearn. To the point that those who can unlearn it effectively are in the small minority.

By the way, Grossman isn't the only one with this view. The U.S. military had to come to grips with it when they revived the sniping program during the Vietnam war after some snipers had breakdowns due to their inability to cope with killing. Subsequently a screening process (as opposed to simply requiring more rigorous training/conditioning) was implemented to eliminate this issue. Effectively an admission that only certain types of soldiers were mentally suited to this type of killing regardless of the amount of training/conditioning.

NWPilgrim
May 12, 2011, 01:30 AM
I've read a lot of threads on several forums with jokes about carrying your pistol into the shower. Seems kind of paranoid but after reading the article it isn't so weird.

This lady was amazing. Knife at her throat yet she fights back in the shower. Lures the thug into the bedroom telling him she has money and then grabs her revolver. Has the presence of mind to aim and work the trigger without shooting wildly. Continues to shoot and forces him the thug to retreat. Scrams out of the house and runs for help.

Superior mental functioning while buck naked and in the most helpless situation in the home. That is a warrior. Wow.

cracked91
May 12, 2011, 02:25 AM
I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue against the idea that CURRENTLY killing is a societal taboo that is reinforced strongly from an early age. This does not seem to stop the carnage though. I think it is at least conceivable that the taboo is a learned behavior and not inherent.

Large numbers of people take up arms against each other with the intent of killing each other every day. This is a fact. The question seems to me to be whether the training they undergo (if any) overcomes a cultural or genetic disposition or unlocks something inside them. The truth lies somewhere in there.

I agree with what both of you are saying. I would add though, that in war, there is often extreme cultural differences in the two sides fighting.

There is usually (not always) at the very least, language barriers between the fighting sides. In many conflicts, this is coupled with racial and religious differences. It would not surprise me a bit if this helped soldiers subconsciously alienate the opposing force into something less than human in their minds.

I believe it would be MUCH harder for a soldier to take the lives of enemies of the same race, religion, and speaking the same language, without suffering adverse mental side effects. Especially if it were a government sanctioned war not a citizen sparked war/revolution.

Im not an expert in anything, just food for thought.

DRBoyle
May 12, 2011, 03:56 AM
This woman should definitely be a role model for all women.
Not some of these atrocities media/corporate outlets bombard them with.
Didn't matter what her political affiliations were. She was deemed vulnerable and attacked as such. Simple as that.

Fortunately she had previously picked the right affiliations and mind set. No doubt that firearm gave her something to fight towards.

0.02

BlueTrain
May 12, 2011, 05:46 AM
With regard to killing other people, including in wartime, I'm of the opinion that we civilized people are no higher than most of whom we call savages. Among many so-called primative societies, wars were fought and conflicts were often settled with a kind of ritualized fighting. I don't know how well things were ultimately settled but it couldn't have been any worse than in all those European wars that repeat themselves every 20 or 30 years and not so many people get hurt. Of course, when someone comes along and decides to play by different rules, it's a whole new ball game, as the saying goes.

Wars are fought and men fight (women too, sometimes) for a multitude of reasons. One of them is for the opportunity for men (women too, sometimes) to prove themselves, both to themselves and to others, and to see just what they're made of. Colin Fletcher said a man carries a monkey around on his back until he finds that out. I'm not so sure about that but in some societies it was considered a braver thing to just touch the enemy rather than kill him. Or better yet, to steal something from him.

None of this has much to do with self-defense, however.

MLeake
May 12, 2011, 07:25 AM
This case is a good example of why dogs are great to have around. Odds are she'd have at least had some advance warning, if a dog or dogs had started snarling and barking.

There are also decent odds an intruder would have chosen a home that did not have dogs, after he heard the initial noise.

I normally bring underwear and shorts or pants to the shower area, so I can put something on after drying off. If I have shorts or pants, I have a handgun. That, plus deadbolts, plus dogs, seem to me a pretty good combo.

bigbaby
May 12, 2011, 09:24 AM
Dogs are great for security; they generally provide a good warning. Too bad mine is deaf and nearly blind. The old boy is 14 now, but he tries to still do his job!

TChase
May 12, 2011, 09:52 AM
Large numbers of people take up arms against each other with the intent of killing each other every day. This is a fact.

"Large number" is relative. A percentage of population would be a more telling "fact". I agree with others- most people will avoid confrontation. It seems to be universal.

lawnboy
May 12, 2011, 10:44 AM
It's not Universal. If it were no one would kill anyone. It is common. Even very common. Perhaps extremely so. But definitely not universal.

And we have veered off into a slightly different topic. The capability to pull the trigger with intent is not the same thing as the capability to deal with the aftermath of the action.

I do not see how it can be argued that people can't be trained to kill people. This flies in the face of everything we know. It would seem to me more proper to say "SOME people CAN'T be trained to kill people". This is exactly what we see from experience and shouldn't be disputed very much. I think.

I do think that in our Western derived culture in the USA in 2011 the reaction to having killed someone is most likely to be remorse/guilt/PTSD or something of that sort. But at the risk of beating a long dead horse, this is not the only possible reaction. Nor is it the only normal reaction. Too many people on this here forum have reported otherwise.

I'm willing to call this horse dead.

Here's hoping that the woman deals with whatever she feels in the aftermath of the event well. And that she is well treated by LE's, Courts, Family and friends.

aarondhgraham
May 12, 2011, 10:55 AM
Here's hoping that the woman deals with whatever she feels in the aftermath of the event well,,,
And that she is well treated by LE's, Courts, Family and friends.

Amen brother.

Aarond

Vanya
May 12, 2011, 11:35 AM
There is usually (not always) at the very least, language barriers between the fighting sides. In many conflicts, this is coupled with racial and religious differences. It would not surprise me a bit if this helped soldiers subconsciously alienate the opposing force into something less than human in their minds.
Yes -- except that there's nothing particularly subconscious about it. Dehumanizing the enemy is a common strategy on the part of those who decide to make war. Those who actually have to fight it are often the intended recipients of deliberate propaganda designed to have this effect. Hence, rumors of "baby-killing" etc., derogatory names for an enemy -- "nip," "gook," raghead," -- and all the rest.

And it doesn't occur only in a military context. There's a tendency of some members here (they tend to be the more chest-thumpy ones) to label people who commit certain crimes as "predators," scumbags," even, literally, "animals." It's all about dehumanizing them, and it's unfortunate, I think. Natural, but unfortunate...

I thought I should point out that for all the people who today are saying they would never celebrate the taking of a human life, there were a whole lot of TFLers doing exactly that in the forum the other day, when the SEALS bagged Osama Bin Laden. I believe some of those people are saying they'd never celebrate such in this thread...
I trust you're not including me among such... I think my posts in that thread made it clear that I found the celebrating distasteful. By chance, this essay (http://www.counterpunch.org/oconnor05122011.html) by a former NYC firefighter was posted this morning on Counterpunch. In criticizing the public celebration of bin Laden's death, he writes:
This isn’t a sporting event. These inappropriate celebrations violate human dignity, and the inherent sanctity of human life. Celebrating death, even an enemy's, reminds me of the anger I felt at seeing Afghans dancing in the streets the day the Towers fell.
It's worth reading.

I'm willing to call this horse dead.
Me too.

To make an attempt to bring this back to tactics: as I think about this incident, it's forcing me to reconsider something I've taken as a given, up to now: that it's always a bad idea to hide loaded guns around the house, without locking them up in some fashion.

But I don't see how this woman could have reached her handgun if it had been locked up; it seems to me it must have been in a nightstand drawer, or perhaps in a holster behind her headboard... Don't know if we'll hear anything about this, but in that particular situation -- very close quarters with an attacker who is trying to force one to submit -- it doesn't seem that a handgun in one of those little safes, for instance, would do one much good. If there are children in the house, guns do need to be locked up or worn, I think, but if not -- I may have to rethink this.

And as I wrote above, I'd think a long gun would have been much less useful at such close quarters, with an attacker perhaps literally breathing down one's neck. I may have to rethink the shotgun as my main HD weapon, as well.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 12, 2011, 11:44 AM
Since the horse is dead, perhaps some of our zombie masters would stop resurrecting the moldy idea that there aren't or shouldn't or wouldn't be stress reactions. :D

Also, triggers for violence are complex and if you want to get beyond some commentary in popular gun magazines, I might suggest

Collins, R.: Violence: A Micro-sociological Theory

- a great, scholary analysis of the built in and cultural triggers for violence.

Good analysis of Grossman's work is part of it.

Not to harp but there is a real literature beyond the conjectures of gun rag columnists. Now, the best columnists are aware of such and read it nowadays. So are the best trainers. The Insight crew, the NTI, the Polite Society, etc. all give up to date presentations.

As far as celebration for a righteous death - that's also studied - what a surprise. Revenge reactions are covered in a new book by David Barash and the immediate physiologically driven joy responses and later reactions are presented.

One can also read about cruelty - a related joyful response in :

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=462761&jid=BBS&volumeId=29&issueId=03&aid=462759

Cruelty by Neil - the pain-blood-death complex.

Thus, lecture over - there's more too it than just a casual gun rag statement as an appeal to authority over what a reaction constitutes of.

The policeone.com site has very relevant and readable articles by law professionals and psychologists/social scientists that analyze such. Klinger's book, Cop Shock, Dead Force Encounters, etc. are quite accessible.

bigbaby
May 12, 2011, 01:03 PM
I wouldn't be too harsh on the "zombie masters". It is easy to talk on line without thinking; I would reserve judgement for actions rather then words.

lawnboy
May 12, 2011, 01:48 PM
I'll be interested to follow reporting on the incident and hopefully hear the answers to a few questions that spring to my mind:


Did she have this handgun as a conscious defense choice? In other words, did she at some point in the past say to herself "hey, I need a gun for protection" or was this just a gun she had around with no prior thought about using it in defense
Was the fact that it was .22 a purposeful selection or not.
If she did select .22 as her weapon of choice, what was her reasoning?
Had she trained with the weapon in preparation for the day when she might have to use it


If anyone hears any further reporting that answers these questions I, for one, would welcome hearing about it.

lawnboy
May 12, 2011, 01:54 PM
Glen,

Minor nit to pick:

One can also read about cruelty - a related joyful response in :


Cruelty is a different topic than fighting the legitimate enemy, whether that enemy is on a battlefield, on the street or an invader in your home.

I suspect that this is not what you meant. But it could be read that way.

I now have to take a break from my busy schedule of tilting at windmills. Horse beating over. I promise.

Vanya
May 12, 2011, 01:54 PM
I just did a quick search on Google news, and there doesn't seem to be any new information on these questions; just that she shot the attacker multiple times, and he only made it as far as her back yard before collapsing.

So I'll just give her one more tiny, tasteful "Attagirl!" ;)

Glenn E. Meyer
May 12, 2011, 02:18 PM
Killing a righteous enemy (as self-defined) or acting cruelly to a person (waterboarding righteously an enemy) - or whatever - my point was that we have neurophysiological mechanisms that reward us for such harmful behavior.

Whether the righteous killing is justified by defending truth, justice and the American way or the torture is justified by preserving us from Satan (as in the Inquisition), inflicting harm has a set of brain structures that support such. Just as there are a set that inhibit such actions.

Also, as we know such mechanisms and predispositions are subject to both learning and experience expectant neural developmental process based on critical perionds.

Legitimacy on inflicting harm is in the eye of the beholder, the doer and the victim.

It was righteous to some to set babies on the back of Japanese mothers on fire as their country was a legitimate enemy. Whether you are appalled or cheered depends on all sorts of things.

lawnboy
May 12, 2011, 02:37 PM
Glen, we are working from a different set of definitions.

markj
May 12, 2011, 02:54 PM
Why would she feel any guilt?

Maybe because most people find killing another human being, no matter how justified the killing is, to be a traumatic event.



My Grandma didnt, a guy was brakeing into the house, she warned him he came thru the back door, she shot and killed him. She was all upset over the mess and very relieved he didnt hurt her in any way. So she felt relief and anger over the mess HE made :) she lived to be 97.

My nephew felt remorse over killing afgans, but glad he wasnt killed and glad he killed them that killed his corps brothers.

Not knowing the gal in question or what she has said in the aftermath, I cant say what or how she is feeling, I can only go by my expir.

My Uncle killed some HAs (He was a county mounty) he felt like he did his job removing the bad guys from society and would gladly do it again he told me.

My UIncle was in Nam sent me pics of those he fragged, he told my dad he got his limit hunting every day. Sounded like he was into it and enjoyed it.

Big Shrek
May 12, 2011, 03:05 PM
Lawyer Daggit

We are conditioned from a young age not to kill. A reaction can therefore be regarded as a normal event- even when you have an excellent excuse.

Mostly...City folk are raised that way...country & some suburban folk kill critters almost daily...but with a specific purpose.
Farm folk know what it is to extinguish life on a regular basis. Sitting quietly while waiting for a fox/coyote...
hitting a cow/pig/sheep between the eyes with a sledgehammer because its cheaper than a bullet...
(yeah, we got those nifty pneumatic hammers nowadays, but the old way was how I was taught)
Hunting deer/hog/bear/other game animals during their appropriate seasons...killing is killing.

Even notice that the soldiers who grew up in the country/on farms have less of a problem with the afteraffects of war??
Having already dealt with death regularly, they can understand that the killing of a human,
in time of war, or in time of self-defense, is no different than killing a predator aiming for their livestock.
You hate to have to kill a beautiful cougar, but if you don't, it might harm someone you love, a neighbor, or your livestock.

That being said, I still remember the first person I ever put in the sights of my M16A1 while in the Army...
what they were doing just before I pulled the trigger (walking thru a field with a squad of troops)...but I don't feel bad about it.
It was only what needed to be done. Otherwise, they would have done the same to our squad given half a chance.

I can't see where taking a criminal out is any different. But I've not shot a criminal yet.
Hopefully I won't have to...but I have the feeling it won't be a huge issue with my mental well-being.

TailGator
May 12, 2011, 03:51 PM
Kind of amazing that we would expect a woman who fled her home naked, collapsed, and was weeping and hysterical after the shooting to celebrate it a bit later.

Equally amazing that folks would try to teach, debate, and second-guess, rather than learn from, a professor of psychology with a doctorate in the subject, who makes it clear by his repeated scholarly references that he is extremely well read in his field.

aarondhgraham
May 12, 2011, 03:54 PM
a professor of psychology with a doctorate in the subject, who makes it clear by his repeated scholarly references that he is extremely well read in his field.

His head is big enough as it is,,,
Mustn't Feed the Beast! ;)

Aarond

In case it wasn't readily apparent,,,
That was satirical humor.

.

lawnboy
May 12, 2011, 04:36 PM
Equally amazing that folks would try to teach, debate, and second-guess, rather than learn from, a professor of psychology with a doctorate in the subject, who makes it clear by his repeated scholarly references that he is extremely well read in his field.

A degree does not confer anything but a degree. Speaking for myself, I reserve the right to disagree with experts. I certainly will not accept the word of any expert in anything just because that person is an expert. I will accept it if it passes my personal reason test and I can think of no serious objection.

An expert can be found to support virtually any assertion. All this means is that a great many experts are wrong. It also means a great many are right. You and I get to decide which are which on each and every topic we consider. Including firearm related topics.

And any expert who demands that all debate stop once he has spoken has failed step one in my personal logic test. Debate is part of the process of learning from experts. No expert here has done that, to my recollection. But if they did, no longer worth listening to in my book.

mbquimby
May 12, 2011, 06:29 PM
mrquimby,

No offense taken. No, never fired a shot in anger. I can see the exhilaration wearing off (or the "thrill of victory" if that is preferable).

I can also see that a whole lot of PTSD seems cultural. That is, it's a response based on societal conditioning. What is military training if not an attempt to overcome this? It may work or it may not.

It seems to me that claiming some kind of genetic imperative against taking another human life flies in the face of thousands of years of recorded history. People kill each other as naturally as they walk upright. The taboo is cultural. Not genetic. This means it can theoretically be overcome, with suitable training.

This does not make the feeling any less real. It just makes it but one of a range of possible responses. Granted the most common one, to a person raised in the Western Tradition. Which is what I'm most familiar with

My point is no more than that there is nothing wrong with being happy the other guy is dead. And staying happy about it.

Good points and well put. I agree to some degree with killing being "natural" as nearly everything in nature does this. I'm sure I have PTSD but it manifests itself by making me overly aware of my surroundings. An issue that actually helps me at work but can make crowded places nearly intolerable because I can't observe everything and everyone around me. I also feel like my body is quicker to dump adrenaline and go to a higher state of "readiness" for lack of a better word. My PTSD isn't as much a result of my taking lives as it is having numerous close calls of my own life and spending long periods of time having to be super-aware of my surroundings to stay safe. That is the kind of PTSD I was referencing. The PTSD that comes with being hunted, not being the hunter. Nice talking with you.

lawnboy
May 12, 2011, 06:36 PM
The PTSD that comes with being hunted, not being the hunter.

That is an interesting perspective! It opens up very different lines of thought than what I and others have been discussing here. Different but absolutely worth considering.


Thank you!

HotShot.444
May 12, 2011, 06:48 PM
First I decide who the "enemy" is. I always acted alone. Know your rear ("six"). Eliminate fear and eliminate conscience. He and I, the worst battle. Forget it. Many will misunderstand that. I does not matter. I am not a psychiatrist, nor do I portray one in the movies; but I am keeping two of them gainfully employed at the V.A. Never assume you "... know what you are going through ..." You don't. ☭ 道 Dao.

bigbaby
May 12, 2011, 07:23 PM
There are a lot of people in Baltimore that are very casual about killing and most of them have never even seen a cow or any other critters that aren't feral. They kill for nothing more than a minor insult or a pair of shoes, regularly and with no demonstrated remorse, except at their sentencing on the rare occasion that they are prosecuted. Don't bother to say 'well they are just criminals or scum or skells' they were all just babies, same as the rest of us once. Some had good mommas and some didn't; there are many places where one can become conditioned to accept violence.

WANT A LCR 22LR
May 12, 2011, 08:39 PM
"" Yes -- except that there's nothing particularly subconscious about it. Dehumanizing the enemy is a common strategy on the part of those who decide to make war. Those who actually have to fight it are often the intended recipients of deliberate propaganda designed to have this effect. Hence, rumors of "baby-killing" etc., derogatory names for an enemy -- "nip," "gook," raghead," -- and all the rest. ""

In the late 90's someone I knew that was in WW2 _still_ would not drive a Japanese car because of what " Them Japs would do to a certain body part of females. " It's doubtfull any of that occured on a large scale but, he still believed it all those years later.

As for the poor criminals kid crying at home because someone defended them selves. Would that kid be crying if the criminal kill the lady in the shower? When a criminal comits a bad act, _they_ are the ones who decided to inflict pain on their family and give up all rights to safe passage.

Celebrating Osamas death is wrong, celebrating that the threat has been removed _is_ cause for celebration. To that end, when confronted with a attacker, the threat of recieving grave bodily harm should be enough to counter any felings of remorse. ( RE killing someone that is walking down the street is way different than someone that has a gun to your head. )

carprivershooter
May 12, 2011, 10:16 PM
Like would like to respond to lawn boy. Even police officers feel guilt when they have to kill a bad guy. many members of the armed forces have guilt after returning from combat. So this young women needs support and understanding to cope with the truma of the attack and the shooting. Maybe i took your comment wrong.

TenRing
May 12, 2011, 10:25 PM
This is an interesting thread with some interesting debate. Not only are the facts being debated, but we are debating the issue of what conclusions can be drawn from the facts.

I feel that there is no question that there will always be an element of society for whom killing another person is tantamount to killing fish. There are some who will show more concern for a suffering dog or cat than for a fellow human sufferer. For proof of this, we need only read the newspapers or TV news web sites of any medium or large city in America. The same phenomena can be seen in small towns and villages but it is certainly more common in the larger cities since there are simply more people there. Men, women and children are routinely murdered and sometimes the motive is nothing more than the desire to steal a pair of sunglasses or to prove one's willingness to kill in order to join a street gang. The perp in this story seems to illustrate the type of person who looks for opportunities to use force against unsuspecting people while the victim could be an example of a person who minds her own business and has no desire to hurt others.

I'm neither psychologist nor criminologist but based on what is going on in this country, I am convinced that there is no universal taboo against killing. Some people may have been conditioned to reject the idea of killing due to their upbringing, their religious convictions or their personal experiences. But there are those who look for opportunities to kill for the same reasons. The criminal who is conditioned to kill finds it easy to take advantage of those who are not violent since their intended victim assumes that other people are not violent. The offender finds that his willingness to do violence is a big advantage over the person who has no desire to harm another person.

BarryLee
May 12, 2011, 10:29 PM
Wow, interesting debate, not what I necessarily expected, but interesting all the same.

Just to follow-up on the OP: the local news reported that the intruder was shot nine times. I guess she was using a semi-automatic maybe a Ruger Mark II/III, Buckmark or something similar.

bigbaby
May 12, 2011, 10:38 PM
She might have been using a 10 shot revolver. If she loaded it with an empty chamber lined up with the pin and just kept firing untill the pistol was empty, it would have been 9 shots.

BarryLee
May 12, 2011, 10:46 PM
She might have been using a 10 shot revolver.

Good point I guess the size of the round does offer some options other than what I am use to.

JustThisGuy
May 13, 2011, 02:12 AM
I am always disappointed when a news thread disintegrates into a "My opinion is more valid than Your opinion" thread.

I am very happy she protected herself. I am very sad she was forced to. I hope she will be well and will recover to a mental state of strength.

She did what she had to. Did she buy the .22 hoping to use it this way? I doubt it (there go opinions again)! But the gun protected an innocent woman from a horrible crime that could have left her damaged for life, or worse, dead.

Let's just be happy together that she is ok and that he will not do this again.

"Smile at everyone, never burn bridges, and always carry a handgun." Mrs. Crooks, my Sixth Grade Teacher on how to get through life.

thallub
May 13, 2011, 07:20 AM
She did what she had to. Did she buy the .22 hoping to use it this way? I doubt it (there go opinions again)! But the gun protected an innocent woman from a horrible crime that could have left her damaged for life, or worse, dead.

Let's just be happy together that she is ok and that he will not do this again.

+1.
Excellent post. This incident points to the fact that a .22 LR bullet to a vulnerable area of the body is more effective than a .44 magnum to a less vulnerable area.

justjim75
May 13, 2011, 08:57 AM
i guess 22lr can be an efective SD round. especially alot of them. if 22 is all the noise and recoil someone can handle (my wife hates the .38 shes been taught to use, but has access to a 10 shot .22 full of stingers) then i say go for it. this proves a small cal gun is better than none

jimbob86
May 13, 2011, 09:53 AM
All is well that ends well. The Home Invader, Israel Perez Puentes, will not do it again, and the lady is physically OK. Good so far ..... but now she has to deal with this ......

To that end, this woman needs the support of Society: The Legal System, Community, Friends and Family.

It is good that she will not be charged, but it would be better if they pinned a medal on her: that would show more support for her (IMO CORRECT) actions than not charging her with anything.

How a person deals with taking life has much to do with how they are brought up, as several posters have noted above. While it is true that some inner-city criminals kill people as pragmatically as a farmer kills a steer, the difference is the acceptablility to Society of the killing. (PETA excepted) Society is fine with hamburger. Society is NOT fine with drive-bys.

A proper (IMO again) Society should have no problem giving out medals for bravery in cases like this: If you want more of a thing, reward it. If you want less of a thing, penalize it.

I would hope Society wants more self reliant people with fewer mental problems. I also would think that Society would want fewer home invaders.

lawnboy
May 13, 2011, 10:12 AM
I hope the decision not to charge her is maintained. All too often in these cases when they get a lot of media attention the pressure starts coming in to make an example of someone. So sometimes the initial decision is overruled.

Here's hoping that does not happen this time.

MLeake
May 13, 2011, 10:25 AM
I can't think of any US city or state where a DA would file charges, unless the attacker were to turn out to have had some relationship with the victim that would completely change perceptions.

Assuming this case is as straightforward as it appears, I doubt the lady will have problems from the judicial system.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 13, 2011, 12:02 PM
Haha - my head explodes - just loving it. LOL - Aaron.

I am so smart - so why did I stop at the gunsmith today to drop off a gun that I screwed up? :D

Maybe they have more expertise than moi in such matters? :D

Glenn

bigbaby
May 13, 2011, 01:14 PM
Even in Baltimore, I got to think she would not face charges. This was a lady who was attacked by a man with a knife. My 5 year old nephew would be able to figure out this one; so the DA has a decent chance to get it right too LOL. To the dude that said we should not express our opinions; all I can say is anyone at anytime should be careful how he expresses his opinions, but to do so tastefully is cool IMO LOL

lawnboy
May 13, 2011, 03:22 PM
I can conceive of an aggressive anti-gun DA seizeing the multiple shots and using it to charge excessive force. I don't think anyone who has actually expended the effort to take a Law degree would be so silly as to think it would ever result in a conviction, but sometimes cases are filed for political reasons.

Actually, a lot of the time cases are filed, or not filed, for political reasons. The more media attention there is the more likely this becomes.

We will use this case to support our belief that firearms are excellent for self defense. Why would we expect our anti-gun adversaries to not do the same thing to support their agenda?

It's a battle.

BarryLee
May 13, 2011, 03:32 PM
I can conceive of an aggressive anti-gun DA seizeing the multiple shots and using it to charge excessive force.

Well, based on the facts so far there is no way the DA in this County will file charges. Even though there are some notable exceptions most municipalities in Georgia are pretty sensible about issues like this.

MLeake
May 13, 2011, 03:51 PM
BarryLee, I concur. It's almost as unlikely in Gwinnett as it would be in Cherokee, Cobb, or Bartow. IE, not going to happen.

bigbaby
May 13, 2011, 04:14 PM
Lawnboy makes a good point. I may have given the Baltimore DA's more credit than they deserve. They are all anti-gun; it is a prerequisite for the job.

BarryLee
May 13, 2011, 10:32 PM
On the news they reported that this guy had eight felony convictions and was currently on probation for his last arrest – burglary. I hate to be callous, but it seems she did what the criminal justice system could not.

MLeake
May 14, 2011, 06:18 AM
Madball6, what you believe, and how you react to the results of your actions, do not always perfectly coincide.

I am not sorry for this decedent. I think the lady's actions were not only justified but necessary. There are still good odds she will have some nightmares over it, mostly from fear but also from regret and / or guilt.

Most people do not seem to be geared to kill without remorse.

jimbob86
May 14, 2011, 09:44 AM
I hate to be callous, but it seems she did what the criminal justice system could not.


ummm.....

You might label me as callous, but it seems she did what the criminal justice system would not.


There, fixed it for ya.

I think the lady's actions were not only justified but necessary.

And I think the Lady's actions were not only justified and necessary, but were also laudable. The sooner Society congratualtes her, and stops celebrating victimhood, the less guilt she will have over something that she is blameless in:

She did not kill that man. He killed himself. She just stored the gun and bullets in her bedroom. There is no shame in shooting a rapist to protect oneself, thus there should be no guilt.

She did a difficult thing, at great risk if she failed, which was a net benefit to Society, so she should be commended for it.

The sooner Society stops treating her like a victim, the sooner she will stop behaving like one, and get on with her life, which is what would be best for her, her family, friends, and Society.

Stevie-Ray
May 14, 2011, 12:00 PM
She did a difficult thing, at great risk if she failed, which was a net benefit to Society, so she should be commended for it.Yes, and hopefully she has no further problems, psychological or no. Had it been me, I don't know if I would be standing over the body yelling you got what you deserved you SOB, or kneeling next to it decorating it with street pizza; I've never been in that situation. I do know that if the former, I would like to know people didn't think me a murderer, and if the latter, I'd probably appreciate a gentle pat of assurance on the shoulder. At any rate, she did well, and I congratulate her.

Oh, and to be honest, had I been younger, I would have been dancing in the streets for the cameras over the death of OBL, and I really don't care what anybody thinks of that. It is in fact what I want certain folks to see.

MLeake
May 14, 2011, 03:59 PM
Stevie-Ray, I was quite happy over OBL myself.

My point was that absolute statements tend to make even the best-intentioned of people look hypocritical, because they often don't mesh with other things people may have said about related topics.

Also, even with OBL, I have to bear in mind that killing him inevitably opened up other possible cans of worms. Retaliation, conspiracy theories, and heightened tensions with Pakistan all leap to mind. I think it was still the right thing to do, but I think anybody who only chooses to celebrate the demise of OBL without considering its ramifications is doing themselves a disservice.

Similarly, I think anybody who expects an apparently otherwise mild-mannered, law-abiding woman to be happy about killing a rapist on all her internal levels is probably fooling themselves. This has nothing to do with how society treats her because of the incident, and much more to do with how we are ingrained at a societal level to want to avoid harming others (violence is not something societies in general tend to encourage), and at an anthropological level to avoid killing members of our tribe (because as humans we generally need to rely and, at some level, trust in others).

Would I have shot the guy, if I had come home to find him attacking my lady? My mother? My sister? If he didn't IMMEDIATELY cease and desist, then most certainly yes.

Would I have been happy about it? Mixed bag. I'd have been happy I was able to protect them. I'd be happy that they and I had survived. I'd be miserable that they had gone through the initial encounter. I'd be angry that it had happened. I'd be angry that the guy had forced me to shoot him. I'd feel a mix of resentment toward his family (for raising, tolerating, maybe even loving the monster), but also pity for them (good families sometimes have awful members; good parents sometimes have terrible off-spring; children don't raise their daddies). I think people who think the woman should just celebrate are radically over-simplifying both the situation, and the human psyche

Glenn E. Meyer
May 14, 2011, 06:50 PM
A short little sentence. Denying the existence of acute stress disorders or PTSD, suggestions to simply man up, etc. are proclamations of your ignorance.

lawnboy
May 15, 2011, 03:59 PM
Zombie horses now?

jimbob86
May 15, 2011, 10:16 PM
A short little sentence. Denying the existence of acute stress disorders or PTSD, suggestions to simply man up, etc. are proclamations of your ignorance.


I don't deny that PTSD exists..... hell, I did not sleep like a baby after I came back from the desert..... What I am saying is that if Society would condone such acts, instead of stressing how terrible the event was, and celebrating the victimhood of "victims", then these things would be easier to recover from. Instead of affirming support for what is logically a correct action, Society seems to want to reward being a victim.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: You want more of a behavior, reward it. You want less of a behavior, stress how bad it is, and what an ordeal it is to deal with.

JohnKSa
May 15, 2011, 10:21 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again: You want more of a behavior, reward it. You want less of a behavior, stress how bad it is, and what an ordeal it is to deal with.Yes and no.

Sure, rewarding a behavior will help to deal with it somewhat. However, if that were the whole story, returning WWII vets would have not had issues with PTSD. They were certainly rewarded, venerated even, for what they did in defeating the enemy and killing bad guys. They had a better time of if than the boys coming back from Vietnam, but they certainly weren't free of the effects of PTSD.

Given that many will find it an ordeal no matter what is stressed or rewarded, it's best to at least acknowledge that many do have a lot of difficulty dealing with it and encourage them to seek help if they start to show symptoms.

jimbob86
May 15, 2011, 10:35 PM
Sure, rewarding a behavior will help to deal with it somewhat.

They had a better time of if than the boys coming back from Vietnam,

So why on earth does Society not do the thing that helps, and stop doing that which makes things worse?

There are no contradictions. When you are confronted with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find one of them is wrong.


I would submit that there are elements of Society that actively discourage people taking care of themselves.

JohnKSa
May 15, 2011, 10:48 PM
So why on earth does Society not do the thing that helps, and stop doing that which makes things worse?As a general question that's a bigger can of worms than we can deal with here. As a specific question, I believe that we have done a LOT of "things that help" in terms of dealing with PTSD. A big part of it was getting everyone to admit it actually existed and that it wasn't just a character issue in the people suffering from it. That step took decades, or centuries, depending on how you look at it.

Like any serious problem, society currently deals with it in an imperfect manner. Given that humans are involved that's not going to change. That said, I think it would be very difficult to argue that things haven't improved dramatically over the last couple of decades in terms of recognizing and treating PTSD.I would submit that there are elements of Society that actively discourage people taking care of themselves.Sure there are. Again, that's a much bigger can of worms than is really appropriate for discussion here.

As it relates to this specific topic, trying to get folks to take care of themselves starts with defining the problem and the methods for dealing with it. Denying that it's a serious issue, making light of it, suggesting that it's nothing more than the effects of "peer pressure" as opposed to a clinical condition that can destroy lives is the exact opposite of trying to encourage people to take care of themselves.

Kyo
May 15, 2011, 11:05 PM
on a relevant note, I live less than half a mile from that location. people that live around me have been broken into. I am glad i have a dog and a weapon to protect myself with. every time i read things like this, I feel more and more justified in the acquisition of my weapon, training and dog

Glenn E. Meyer
May 16, 2011, 09:34 AM
If you know this area, one interesting fact is that folks left on their own to take care of themselves, tend to self-medicate with alcohol or other substances.

This certainly a good thing as it builds self-reliance and character. It aids in family relationships and work performance.

I think some folks need to drop their expounding of some philosophical tantrum about how we don't have their ideal tough guy society - gleaned from a gun writer or two, movies, etc. - and just face the reality of such problems. I sense in some a preventive denial - as if they are worried they might face some sort of disorder and that weakens their self-image as a gunslinger. One major point to get over is that such things happen to strong people and help is needed.

That might seem a strong or insulting statement but that's my viewpoint. The evidence is clear and if you don't accept it on the grounds that a gunwriter says, blah, blah - I have to suspect other motivations.

lawnboy
May 16, 2011, 07:41 PM
If you know this area, one interesting fact is that folks left on their own to take care of themselves, tend to self-medicate with alcohol or other substances.

This certainly a good thing as it builds self-reliance and character. It aids in family relationships and work performance.

I think some folks need to drop their expounding of some philosophical tantrum about how we don't have their ideal tough guy society - gleaned from a gun writer or two, movies, etc. - and just face the reality of such problems. I sense in some a preventive denial - as if they are worried they might face some sort of disorder and that weakens their self-image as a gunslinger. One major point to get over is that such things happen to strong people and help is needed.

That might seem a strong or insulting statement but that's my viewpoint. The evidence is clear and if you don't accept it on the grounds that a gunwriter says, blah, blah - I have to suspect other motivations.


This is getting annoying.

Most of us who have pointed out that all people involved in shootings, whether in war or in civilian life do not always wind up on medication (self administered or otherwise) or on a psychiatrists couch do not discount the fact that some (even most) people have difficulty adjusting. We merely point out that a different reaction is possible and that there are people right here on TFL who have made the adjustments required in the aftermath of combat and police or self defense shootings with little difficulty. I'm not one of those people, but I have read their posts and so have you.

I sense in you a preventative denial. Why is it so difficult for you to accept the statements of those who have gone thru the situation and have reported little emotional difficulty? Perhaps I'm not reading your posts closely enough but it seems to me you are straying dangerously close to engaging in the same behavior you are accusing others of.

This horse was supposed to be well and truly dead. I rejoin the crew beating it with great regret.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 17, 2011, 09:35 AM
Lawnboy - you are continually missing the point. You deliberately misinterpret what I've said repeatedly. Thus you don't contribute to the conversation.

Reread what I said, see if you get it this time. I doubt it.

PS - I forgot to mention that an avoidant copying style is one of the biggest predictors for the development of PTSD after a significant critical incident.

Some studies report it puils 41% of the variance.

Thus, my disdain for those in denial that it exists or suggestions that one simply " man-up" because a gun writer said so.

And again for the final exam - not everyone gets it, nor is that claimed, nor is it the case that if you don't, you have a different problem like sociopathy.

The point is that stress disorders do occur and the armed citizen, military, police, etc. should be aware of such and the consequences. So if the symptoms appear 'manning up' may not cut it.

Is that clear enough?

lawnboy
May 17, 2011, 11:44 AM
Lawnboy - you are continually missing the point. You deliberately misinterpret what I've said repeatedly. Thus you don't contribute to the conversation.

And now you've done it again. Requiring others to sit up straight and chirp agreement with you is neither conversation or discussion. I have no desire to contribute in that way. Guilty as charged.

Reread what I said, see if you get it this time. I doubt it

In all my posts I've never accused you of being stupid or dense. I've disagreed with you and challenged your ideas but never your brain power. For the record, I do understand what you're saying. I just think that like most of psychological thought it passes over a large chunk of observed reality. It is a piece of the picture. Not the whole picture. If you are willing to limit your thinking to that and not look further then you are surely free to do so.

PS - I forgot to mention that an avoidant copying style is one of the biggest predictors for the development of PTSD after a significant critical incident.

Some studies report it puils 41% of the variance.

I have no idea what the meaning or point of that is. Why not just say what you mean?

Thus, my disdain for those in denial that it exists or suggestions that one simply " man-up" because a gun writer said so.

And again for the final exam - not everyone gets it, nor is that claimed, nor is it the case that if you don't, you have a different problem like sociopathy.

The point is that stress disorders do occur and the armed citizen, military, police, etc. should be aware of such and the consequences. So if the symptoms appear 'manning up' may not cut it

If you had led with this we'd have no ground to argue on. That's why this is all so stupid. Why not just point that out when somebody posts the "man up" solution and leave it at that? A person may be able to "man up" or they may not. That covers the whole topic and shuts the door. Hoping to be and attempting to prepare to be one who "man's up" doesn't deny the alternative exists, or that you may not "man up" yourself (or myself, or his-self or her-self. Just so we're clear).

markj
May 17, 2011, 04:23 PM
Gosh, not everyone that kills another suffers from PTSD, some do, many do. Many do not. Help those that accept help. it is all you can do.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 17, 2011, 07:30 PM
Not to be obscure but when one decides to debate scientific findings and claiming something has this or that effect or lack of - it's not a bad thing to understand how it is determined. Percent explained variance is a statistical concept of how much a factor contributes to a prediction.

I don't debate metallurgy of bullets as I'm not a metallurgist.

But I've said my piece and been consistent through the whole argument. Let the debate stand as is for my part.

Shane Tuttle
May 17, 2011, 09:30 PM
With all of the sophisticated discussions that make my head hurt, I have to go back to the theory of Occam's Razor...

Why would she feel any guilt? She oughta feel the exhilaration of righteous victory.

I can't help but think why NOT? I don't think it should have been questioned in the first place. And that's why I can see Glenn and others trying to reason with the response...to no avail.

Knowing Glenn's background, my instincts tell me to take heed in his findings and weigh them heavily when forming my own opinion.

Art Eatman
May 18, 2011, 08:47 AM
An Olde Phart's opinion: "Man up" is one of the more foolish and arrogant notions that I've run across in many and many a decade. It's foolish to believe that all men (or women) should have identical reactions to bad-news events. The arrogance is on the part of the believer who thinks the phrase is meaningful, believing that he and only he is qualified to sit in judgement as to how folks should react.

I bought my present land from a retired Green Beret M/Sgt who was highly decorated. MAC/SOG. Two Silver Stars, among other things. He'd wake up from nightmares, screaming. Flashbacks to dealing with napalmed villages. Alcoholic...

My father? D-Day and the ensuing tourism in France. Came back, went back to deer hunting. Rose high in his engineering profession. His biggest complaint was that cigars were hard come by, and battlefields don't smell good; rotting meat.

People are different. Leave it at that.

Capt Charlie
May 18, 2011, 12:09 PM
People are different. Leave it at that.

And those two short sentences sums up this whole argument nicely.

This has been an interesting thread, but I think that just about everything that can be said, has been said.

Oh, and before I close this, there's something some of you should know about Glenn. Dr. Meyer is a professor of psychology at a well-known Texas university, and is a published authority on.... you guessed it, PTSD ;).

Closed.